Barack Obama and the Redistribution of Power

[Mazeppa]

Barack Obama and the Redistribution of Power
The president’s foreign-policy failures aren’t unrelated to his globalist ideology.

By Thomas Sowell

Barack Obama at Occidental College

Nowhere is the contrast between Barack Obama as defined by his rhetoric “(“Obama 1”) and Barack Obama as defined by his actions (“Obama 2”) greater than in his foreign policy — and especially his policy toward Israel.

What if we put aside Barack Obama’s rhetoric and instead look exclusively at his documented record over a period of decades up to the present?

The first thing that is striking about that record is the long string of his mentors and allies who were marked by hatred of the United States and by a vision of the world in which the white, Western nations have become prosperous by oppressing and exploiting the non-white, non-Western nations.

The person most people have heard of who matched that description has been Jeremiah Wright, whose church Barack Obama attended for 20 years, and was still attending when he began his campaign for the presidency. But Jeremiah Wright was just one in a series of mentors and allies with a similar vision and a similar visceral hostility to the West.

Barack Obama was virtually marinated in that vision from childhood. His mother clashed with her Indonesian husband when he began to move away from his earlier anti-Western radicalism and to work with Western businesses investing in Indonesia.

As a counterweight to whatever ideological influence her Indonesian husband might have on her son, she extolled the virtues of his absent Kenyan father, who remained a doctrinaire, anti-Western socialist to the end.

After Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents at age ten, his grandfather introduced him to a black man named Frank Marshall Davis, who had a long career of anti-American, anti-white propaganda that included a stint as a member of the Communist party. Davis was Obama’s mentor on race throughout his adolescent years, until Obama left for college.

The progression of such mentors and like-minded contemporaries continued as Obama went through Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.

These included Professor Edward Said at Columbia, a spokesman for Palestinian terrorists, and Professor Derrick Bell at Harvard Law School. Bell was an advocate of so-called “critical race theory” — an uncritical mishmash of notions compiled by a man who said that he saw his role as deliberately annoying white people. Barack Obama literally embraced Bell at a public gathering.

After Obama went out into the world and worked for a time in a private business, he regarded himself as being, in his own words, “a spy behind enemy lines.”

Later, when he began his political career by running for state office in Illinois, his campaign began with a fundraiser in the home of Bill Ayers, who had been a domestic terrorist who planted bombs in public places, including the Pentagon.

When this association was later revealed, Obama said that he was still a child during Ayers’s years as a terrorist. But Obama was by no means a child when Ayers defended his years of terrorism in a statement that appeared in the New York Times — ironically, on September 11, 2001.

This is not the Barack Obama that most voters saw and elected president of the United States in 2008. What they saw was a carefully crafted image of a bright, articulate, energetic, and genial fellow who would heal our racial and partisan divides. His likability was high and remained so, even after many became disappointed with his policies.

His geniality has carried him over many rough spots. But have you ever heard of a grumpy confidence man? Geniality is a prerequisite for the job.

What many regard as a failure of Obama’s foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, may well be one of his biggest successes. His desire to redistribute wealth domestically is part of a larger ideological vision that includes a redistribution of power internationally.

Obama has long said that the United States plays too large a role internationally. His policies suggest that Islamic countries need a larger role. The troubling question is whether he sees his own role as “a spy behind enemy lines” in the White House.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Thank you for shedding more light onto The Socialist.

[Mazeppa]

These articles need to be out there so people can read them and decide if this is the man they want to be in the White House for the next four years.

[Midtowner]

Pure fiction.

[TitoMorelli]

Pure fiction.
You mean the part about him being in Wright's congregation for 20+ years? Or about his stepfather being a member of CPUSA? Or maybe the part about his political career being kick-started in Ayers' home?

[Skysooner]

Or the total fantasy built up in your mind? People can look back at my record and see people of all different races, ideas, genders and socio-economic classes in my background as well and that doesn't make me any less of an American. All I see is your paranoid fantasies affecting your judgment. Shouldn't we be concerned with The Polygamists lack of experience outside his class?

[TitoMorelli]

So Sky, how many domestic terrorists helped you to get to where you are? How many churches have you attended in which the "theology" being preached there was based on hatred of white Americans? And how many active Communist party members helped to raise you and teach you during your formative years?


And your continual use of "Polygamist" just shows that you're either trying hard to deceive posters on here, or have succeeded in deceiving yourself, when you label yourself a moderate.

[Skysooner]

So Sky, how many domestic terrorists helped you to get to where you are? How many churches have you attended in which the "theology" being preached there was based on hatred of white Americans? And how many active Communist party members helped to raise you and teach you during your formative years?


And your continual use of "Polygamist" just shows that you're either trying hard to deceive posters on here, or have succeeded in deceiving yourself, when you label yourself a moderate.

I am a product of my genetics and what my parents taught me. I went to church for years and that didn't exactly stick did it. How many buildings has Obama blown up or how many Communist party meetings has he gone to as President? None that I know of. I have used "Polygamist" twice and it is simply an ironic twist to all of you who keep calling Obama a Socialist when there is exactly zero evidence to that fact. Just because you say something doesn't make it true and that is what this is pointing out. There is no evidence Romney is anything but a Mormon businessman. This is called irony. Ironic that you didn't get it.

[TitoMorelli]

I am a product of my genetics and what my parents taught me. I went to church for years and that didn't exactly stick did it. How many buildings has Obama blown up or how many Communist party meetings has he gone to as President? None that I know of. I have used "Polygamist" twice and it is simply an ironic twist to all of you who keep calling Obama a Socialist when there is exactly zero evidence to that fact. Just because you say something doesn't make it true and that is what this is pointing out. There is no evidence Romney is anything but a Mormon businessman. This is called irony. Ironic that you didn't get it.

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Just because you chose at some point not to believe in going to church doesn't disprove anything. Furthermore, I doubt that you ever referred to any long-standing preacher of hatred as your mentor and father-figure until it suddenly became more politically expedient to throw that beloved figure under the bus. Or that you ever went knowingly courting those who proudly boast of having plotted and backed domestic terrorism against this country, when you wanted to boost your personal, business or political fortunes.

Furthermore, why would scum such as Ayers hold fund-raisers for any candidate that wasn't like-minded? Wouldn't that be incredibly - wait for it - ironic?

[Midtowner]

Perhaps for the same reason Republicans who can't stand Romney are giving millions of dollars to his campaign?

[OU_Sooners75]

Bgt
I am a product of my genetics and what my parents taught me. I went to church for years and that didn't exactly stick did it. How many buildings has Obama blown up or how many Communist party meetings has he gone to as President? None that I know of. I have used "Polygamist" twice and it is simply an ironic twist to all of you who keep calling Obama a Socialist when there is exactly zero evidence to that fact. Just because you say something doesn't make it true and that is what this is pointing out. There is no evidence Romney is anything but a Mormon businessman. This is called irony. Ironic that you didn't get it.

Well, let's look at what socialism is, shall we?

http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=socialism&o=0&l=dir

So by looking at the definition, you will see that Obama has some very socialist views on things.

Obamacare = Social program
The way Obama wants to redistribute the wealth is a socialist view.

I'm not saying he is a socialist or communist. But his actions are louder than his speeches.

The guy is a cancer of a leader and does not need to be in the white house.


And before you say it, I worked as a volunteer in central kansas as part of his 2008 campaign.

[pphilfran]

Pure fiction.

I would say bias more than fiction...

[TitoMorelli]

Perhaps for the same reason Republicans who can't stand Romney are giving millions of dollars to his campaign?

Oh. So Ayers held a fund-raiser for Obama because he's sick and tired of the sorry job Obama is doing as president? Got it.

[Skysooner]

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Just because you chose at some point not to believe in going to church doesn't disprove anything. Furthermore, I doubt that you ever referred to any long-standing preacher of hatred as your mentor and father-figure until it suddenly became more politically expedient to throw that beloved figure under the bus. Or that you ever went knowingly courting those who proudly boast of having plotted and backed domestic terrorism against this country, when you wanted to boost your personal, business or political fortunes.

Furthermore, why would scum such as Ayers hold fund-raisers for any candidate that wasn't like-minded? Wouldn't that be incredibly - wait for it - ironic?

Nor does it prove your point. Midtowner has it right. There are plenty of people that give money to both candidates who want something. Whether they get it or not isn't the issue. Access is which is what our democracy is all about. My former preacher (Robin Meyers) wouldn't be looked at by many of you as someone worthy of consideration as a Christian yet I still think he is one of the great human beings out there.

OU_Sooner75 this has been debated to death on this board. By that definition, the past 5 administrations have been socialist. There is nothing he has done that could be called socialist. You will never convince me otherwise. Debate policies but calling someone a label they haven't earned isn't going to do anything to convince the moderates in this country who will decide this election.

I was going to call you anything. What do you call Romneycare then? Does that make Romney a socialist? This isn't a government owning means of production. It is regulation which goes on with almost everything.

[Sooner98]

Pure fiction.

http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/images/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg

[MountainOkie]

There are plenty of people that give money to both candidates who want something. Whether they get it or not isn't the issue. Access is which is what our democracy is all about.

Access for anti-American terrorists is what America is all about?

[Skysooner]

Access for anti-American terrorists is what America is all about?

Umm yeah. What I was saying was this country is predicated on freedom and innocence until proven guilty. Just because someone labels someone else doesn't mean it is true. Look at Gene McCarthy during the 1950s to see what was bs. Somehow labeling has become truth among the right wing neo-cons.

[KABOOKIE]

Umm yeah. What I was saying was this country is predicated on freedom and innocence until proven guilty. Just because someone labels someone else doesn't mean it is true. Look at Gene McCarthy during the 1950s to see what was bs. Somehow labeling has become truth among the right wing neo-cons.

Snort. Oh the irony.

[Skysooner]

Snort. Oh the irony.

This is why I generally don't label. You would never hear me say all of these people do this absolutely. That is why I don't go for it in discussions. Lefties label too. I don't like it any better when they do it.

[MountainOkie]

Look at Gene McCarthy during the 1950s to see what was bs. Somehow labeling has become truth among the right wing neo-cons.

That's actually leftist fiction. There were communists in government within the United States Government at that time. 57 of those he accused were later summoned before a loyalty board (after the McCarthy hearings) 54 resigned.

Further, a reward was posted for several years offering $10,000 for any proof that anyone McCarthy charged was actually not a communist or communist sympathizer. The reward went unclaimed.

Also, on the point about the Weathermen access to politicians. In this case (concerning Weathermen terrorists who bombed several buildings and, as I recall, killed a cop) can you name for me the amendment, as well as the language of the Constitution that says you have the right for "access to politicians" so we can have a grown up conversation about Constitutional Law and not bandy about "rights" like "access to politicians". Thanks.

But I suppose, really, that's more of a side point. The main point concerns Obama and his history of associations: notably leftist, often communist, sometimes violent terrorists.

[Turd_Ferguson]

This is why I generally don't label. You would never hear me say all of these people do this absolutely. That is why I don't go for it in discussions. Lefties label too. I don't like it any better when they do it.Are you Mid's Sister/Girlfriend?

[TitoMorelli]

But I suppose, really, that's more of a side point. The main point concerns Obama and his history of associations: notably leftist, often communist, sometimes violent terrorists.

And let's not forget little Tony Rezko.

[MountainOkie]

And let's not forget little Tony Rezko.

Oh yes, I forgot, he enjoys his time with the corrupt too.

[Skysooner]

Are you Mid's Sister/Girlfriend?

Whatever. My wife would have a word to say on that fact. Are you RLIMC's gay lover?

[Soonerjeepman]

I am a product of my genetics and what my parents taught me. I went to church for years and that didn't exactly stick did it. How many buildings has Obama blown up or how many Communist party meetings has he gone to as President? None that I know of. I have used "Polygamist" twice and it is simply an ironic twist to all of you who keep calling Obama a Socialist when there is exactly zero evidence to that fact. Just because you say something doesn't make it true and that is what this is pointing out. There is no evidence Romney is anything but a Mormon businessman. This is called irony. Ironic that you didn't get it.

really? lol you actually THINK that someone with an eye on the most powerful position in the free world would actually do ANY of those? We are not saying the HE is doing that, he definitely wants a "different" America than you or I..well me anyway. He is smart enough and has enough people behind him to guide him so that he can slowly get to the position to make things happen.

He has already proven that by his obamacare, some of his exe orders, lack of interest in the ME.

[Skysooner]

really? lol you actually THINK that someone with an eye on the most powerful position in the free world would actually do ANY of those? We are not saying the HE is doing that, he definitely wants a "different" America than you or I..well me anyway. He is smart enough and has enough people behind him to guide him so that he can slowly get to the position to make things happen.

He has already proven that by his obamacare, some of his exe orders, lack of interest in the ME.

Obamacare? You also mean Romneycare. Executive orders are used by all the Presidents. Lack of interest in the Middle East is a good thing. We can't afford to be the world's policeman anymore.

Actually all I was saying is that there are is a certain group of people that make it seem that absolutely everything this President does is a bad thing. I distrust reactions such as these as they smack of fanaticism. None of these posters has yet to prove to me anything since all they do is scream in outrage or post outrage articles. I don't trust that from either side. When an article is designed to manipulate, you should be very careful of it.

[MountainOkie]

That's actually leftist fiction. There were communists in government within the United States Government at that time. 57 of those he accused were later summoned before a loyalty board (after the McCarthy hearings) 54 resigned.

Further, a reward was posted for several years offering $10,000 for any proof that anyone McCarthy charged was actually not a communist or communist sympathizer. The reward went unclaimed.

Also, on the point about the Weathermen access to politicians. In this case (concerning Weathermen terrorists who bombed several buildings and, as I recall, killed a cop) can you name for me the amendment, as well as the language of the Constitution that says you have the right for "access to politicians" so we can have a grown up conversation about Constitutional Law and not bandy about "rights" like "access to politicians". Thanks.

But I suppose, really, that's more of a side point. The main point concerns Obama and his history of associations: notably leftist, often communist, sometimes violent terrorists.

Hello Sky?

Also, I wasn't going to mention it because I didn't want to be rude (but since you haven't gotten back to me) it wasn't "Gene McCarthy" it was Senator Joe McCarthy who was behind the hearings in the 1950s.

[landrun]

....keep calling Obama a Socialist when there is exactly zero evidence to that fact. Just because you say something doesn't make it true and that is what this is pointing out.


There is plenty of evidence that he is a socialist to anyone who has (as our founding father's called it) a love for the truth.
The array of facts already pointed out in this thread and the fact that he joined the communist party here in the USA are pretty undeniable.

Here's the reminder for you: http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?168603-Obama-joined-a-socialist-party-in-the-US-while-running-for-office&highlight=communist+party

[Skysooner]

Hello Sky?

Also, I wasn't going to mention it because I didn't want to be rude (but since you haven't gotten back to me) it wasn't "Gene McCarthy" it was Senator Joe McCarthy who was behind the hearings in the 1950s.

Not rude. I always get that one wrong. I did a paper on him in college and still can't remember his first name. I remember Roy Cohn.

[Skysooner]

There is plenty of evidence that he is a socialist to anyone who has (as our founding father's called it) a love for the truth.
The array of facts already pointed out in this thread and the fact that he joined the communist party here in the USA are pretty undeniable.

Here's the reminder for you: http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?168603-Obama-joined-a-socialist-party-in-the-US-while-running-for-office&highlight=communist+party

Only in your own mind.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Man Sky, how can you continue to deny what is patently obvious. The Socialist is truly that! I wonder, just how would you describe The Socialsts philosophies? Is he democrat? Yellow or blue dog? Just please, describe his views in your words.

[Skysooner]

Man Sky, how can you continue to deny what is patently obvious. The Socialist is truly that! I wonder, just how would you describe The Socialsts philosophies? Is he democrat? Yellow or blue dog? Just please, describe his views in your words.

The same as virtually every other President over the last 5 administrations. You can't describe ACA as socialism as it is regulation/taxation and not government owned. The definition of socialism has been posted multiple times, and if you can point to things Obama has done (not perceived and not what you project but DONE) that have increased government ownership of the means of production tell me. GM does not count as the government owns part of the company but does not manage it. This was a bail out to prevent many small businesses from going under that supplied the big automakers. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it isn't socialism per se.

Here is the thing. I don't like labels. I find them to be small-minded and only designed to get a response. The whole Kenyan, socialist, communist, terrorist thing as applied to Obama is mostly sour grapes that the election was lost. You may think that the labels will stick, but most of it is basically bs. Did he have friends around him that were criminals? Sure he did, and on top of that, there are many of his Cabinet picks I don't like. There are things he has done I don't like.

Well here you go, you have an opportunity to win it back in a big way. The economy sucks, we are headed into potentially another recession, and Romney is trailing badly. There are no labels that are going to help him win the election. Telling us how he would fix things will do it. Unfortunately for both candidates, their math on how they would accomplish this isn't working out nor will they discuss it in great detail. The debate might help, but I'm not holding out real help from this. Lead by inspiration and not by tearing down your opponent particularly with labels. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud. Tell a lie often enough and many times it sticks. The more outrageous the lie, the more it sticks. Unfortunately the majority of Americans aren't buying it per the polls. Show up in numbers and maybe it will change.

[sappstuf]

The same as virtually every other President over the last 5 administrations. You can't describe ACA as socialism as it is regulation/taxation and not government owned. The definition of socialism has been posted multiple times, and if you can point to things Obama has done (not perceived and not what you project but DONE) that have increased government ownership of the means of production tell me. GM does not count as the government owns part of the company but does not manage it. This was a bail out to prevent many small businesses from going under that supplied the big automakers. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it isn't socialism per se.

Here is the thing. I don't like labels. I find them to be small-minded and only designed to get a response. The whole Kenyan, socialist, communist, terrorist thing as applied to Obama is mostly sour grapes that the election was lost. You may think that the labels will stick, but most of it is basically bs. Did he have friends around him that were criminals? Sure he did, and on top of that, there are many of his Cabinet picks I don't like. There are things he has done I don't like.

Well here you go, you have an opportunity to win it back in a big way. The economy sucks, we are headed into potentially another recession, and Romney is trailing badly. There are no labels that are going to help him win the election. Telling us how he would fix things will do it. Unfortunately for both candidates, their math on how they would accomplish this isn't working out nor will they discuss it in great detail. The debate might help, but I'm not holding out real help from this. Lead by inspiration and not by tearing down your opponent particularly with labels. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud. Tell a lie often enough and many times it sticks. The more outrageous the lie, the more it sticks. Unfortunately the majority of Americans aren't buying it per the polls. Show up in numbers and maybe it will change.

Only in your mind.

CNN has it a statistical dead heat with a D+8 split. The Dems got D+7 in 2008...

Do you really think this election will break even harder for Obama this year than in 2008? You must be insane to believe that.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/01/battle-for-presidency-remains-close-in-new-cnn-poll/?hpt=po_c1

[Skysooner]

Only in your mind.

CNN has it a statistical dead heat with a D+8 split. The Dems got D+7 in 2008...

Do you really think this election will break even harder for Obama this year than in 2008? You must be insane to believe that.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/01/battle-for-presidency-remains-close-in-new-cnn-poll/?hpt=po_c1


National numbers don't mean much with the electoral college.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

I also never said it would be more than 2008. I'm saying with the state numbers which are the only ones that really matter, Romney is trailing. Romney can't win by being negative. He is trailing by doing that. He has to enunciate a clear message and give specifics.

Didn't see the state-by-state numbers on your link to just now. They have shifted some states back to being neutral. That should make for a more interesting finish. I'll be voting absentee in a couple of days, so at this point, I won't be worrying much about it. Given gridlock, there isn't likely much that will be done anyway by either candidate. It is my local elections I'm more concerned about.

[TitoMorelli]

National numbers don't mean much with the electoral college.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

I also never said it would be more than 2008. I'm saying with the state numbers which are the only ones that really matter, Romney is trailing. Romney can't win by being negative. He is trailing by doing that. He has to enunciate a clear message and give specifics.

Didn't see the state-by-state numbers on your link to just now. They have shifted some states back to being neutral. That should make for a more interesting finish. I'll be voting absentee in a couple of days, so at this point, I won't be worrying much about it. Given gridlock, there isn't likely much that will be done anyway by either candidate. It is my local elections I'm more concerned about.

Being negative has sure worked for Obama though, hasn't it? Then again, if he could run on anything other than "I shot Bin Laden," maybe his campaign would be more positive.

[Skysooner]

Being negative has sure worked for Obama though, hasn't it? Then again, if he could run on anything other than "I shot Bin Laden," maybe his campaign would be more positive.

It has yes. Both sides have been negative. The ads get really old, and they are on all the time in Colorado. I am happy that I have DVR to get past them. It does appear that the race is tightening. I have read a couple of more articles this morning on it. Obviously, the state of the economy hasn't had the effect on the race that it should have. Tactics from the Romney camp need to change.

[TitoMorelli]

It has yes. Both sides have been negative. The ads get really old, and they are on all the time in Colorado. I am happy that I have DVR to get past them. It does appear that the race is tightening. I have read a couple of more articles this morning on it. Obviously, the state of the economy hasn't had the effect on the race that it should have. Tactics from the Romney camp need to change.

What many seem to believe, Sky, is that Romney's failure to give out specific details as to how he would address the economic slump, deal with foreign allies and thorns in our side, etc, has hurt him. They may be right on that. I remember that John Kerry would answer almost every question with "I have a plan" yet never divulged any details. Made me doubt that he really had one.

Of course, Ryan has spoken at length and in detail for years about his plans to address medical costs, national debt, etc. And the opposition cherry-picks parts of it and tries to beat him over the head with it. And the "Jersey Shore" electorate barely notices.

Of course the "likeability" factor, which unfortunately has always carried more weight in elections than it should, weighs heavily in Obama's favor. I think it's a big reason that GWB won in 2000. We don't necessarily need likeable or photogenic politicians, we need leaders who are willing to address the tough issues and not kick the can down the road so that the next guy in office, who faces a greater and more entrenched crisis, has to.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Sky, I appreciate you answering my question. I understand your issue with "labels", but I use it to succinctly describe the nature of this person. He was disingenuous in the previous election and the same here. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the press was and is still duplicitous in this. I truly believe that the man is taking the U.S. down the road to destruction. I fail to see how the current president is the same as the previous 5. The current person in office in my opinion does not have the best interests for the country at heart, and I do not believe I can be convinced that that is not the case.

[Skysooner]

Sky, I appreciate you answering my question. I understand your issue with "labels", but I use it to succinctly describe the nature of this person. He was disingenuous in the previous election and the same here. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the press was and is still duplicitous in this. I truly believe that the man is taking the U.S. down the road to destruction. I fail to see how the current president is the same as the previous 5. The current person in office in my opinion does not have the best interests for the country at heart, and I do not believe I can be convinced that that is not the case.

NP, and I get what you are saying. I'm only saying the government as a whole is redistributive and has been for a long time. He may be the way you say. I certainly have many issues with the way things have been done and the lack of leadership from this President. President Teleprompter is right in many ways. Still, I think any long-term problems are the result of lack of cooperation from both the President and Congress in addressing the fiscal cliff we are approaching or may already be off. Putting off changes for political reasons just makes the future solution that much less palatable to most.

[Skysooner]

What many seem to believe, Sky, is that Romney's failure to give out specific details as to how he would address the economic slump, deal with foreign allies and thorns in our side, etc, has hurt him. They may be right on that. I remember that John Kerry would answer almost every question with "I have a plan" yet never divulged any details. Made me doubt that he really had one.

Of course, Ryan has spoken at length and in detail for years about his plans to address medical costs, national debt, etc. And the opposition cherry-picks parts of it and tries to beat him over the head with it. And the "Jersey Shore" electorate barely notices.

Of course the "likeability" factor, which unfortunately has always carried more weight in elections than it should, weighs heavily in Obama's favor. I think it's a big reason that GWB won in 2000. We don't necessarily need likeable or photogenic politicians, we need leaders who are willing to address the tough issues and not kick the can down the road so that the next guy in office, who faces a greater and more entrenched crisis, has to.

The really funny thing is that I think Romney is a likeable guy. I probabaly wouldn't have much in common for conversation with him, but in Massachusetts he tried to govern with compromise. He just doesn't come across as well in front of crowds. I have heard conjecture on it. One theory is that as a Mormon leader, he isn't used to being questioned about his decisions as that is the nature of the church and its leadership.

I would just love to see some Reagan moments from him. Reagan said what he would do and did what he said as much as he could. Romney doesn't have the acting background to help him. I just want to know what to expect from him and not for him to play Santa Claus as in we can have huge tax cuts and that the math will work out. Both candidates are playing fast and loose with the numbers on this and neither is making sense.

Honestly I think we are seeing Paul Ryan being set up as the next Republican Presidential candidate if Romney loses and unlike Palin I see him as someone that will want to get into the middle of it all instead of sniping around the edges.

[Soonerjeepman]

Sky,

I agree about the article manipulation, but my point was that obama is smart enough to NOT do anything too off the edge yet. I'm sorry but I still believe if you associate with certain types of people that tends to show a side of your personality. I agree on the campaign issues as well...so tired of BOTH sides just spouting negative BS...tell me WHAT you are going to do.

I also agree that they are setting Ryan up, I'd almost rather had seen him run against obama...think he might have gotten a better response.

[Skysooner]

Sky,

I agree about the article manipulation, but my point was that obama is smart enough to NOT do anything too off the edge yet. I'm sorry but I still believe if you associate with certain types of people that tends to show a side of your personality. I agree on the campaign issues as well...so tired of BOTH sides just spouting negative BS...tell me WHAT you are going to do.

I also agree that they are setting Ryan up, I'd almost rather had seen him run against obama...think he might have gotten a better response.

No doubt Obama is smart. There is just only so much harm he can do through executive orders and even those can be challenged. I am not as sure about the people they associate with. I think it is the same with all of the political types. You sell your soul to get elected. Many of his associations though pre-dated his active push for major office. I don't agree with his pastor. I was of the same denomination as Obama before I left church entirely, and we believed in love and acceptance for all. I can't approach things mentally as African Americans, but I can't see how damning your own country can be very helpful.

I would love to have seen Tom Coburn in there against Obama. He doesn't have the same baggage as some of the others.

[Soonerjeepman]

I guess I see a philosophical direction with obama...and it bothers me. My dad sent me the 900 exe order email..which I refuted with snopes and sent it back to him but he is "older" and set in his ways...lol. I think Americans have had their heads in the sand as far as how the country is run for a long time, if it doesn't directly effect me then no bother. Unfortunately now that people are starting to give a crap all these bogus emails/articles are coming up. Yes there are some that are legit but people are too lazy to really look into them. I've been lazy myself, but have learned my lesson. Quite frankly I don't trust MOST politicians, like you said, they have sold their soul to get elected.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I'm certainly no fan of Obama, but can somebody seriously tell me what he has done that's less imperialistic that W? He ordered a surge in Afghanistan. He was reluctantly drawn in to "lead" a foray into a foreign state's civil war. He followed the troop withdraw timeline in Iraq that W put in place to a t. He abandoned the Gitmo shutdown and even continued with the military tribunals.

It's the height of political comedy to see the left now defend Obama and the right excoriate him for what has essentially been Bush term 3.

[okie52]

I'm certainly no fan of Obama, but can somebody seriously tell me what he has done that's less imperialistic that W? He ordered a surge in Afghanistan. He was reluctantly drawn in to "lead" a foray into a foreign state's civil war. He followed the troop withdraw timeline in Iraq that W put in place to a t. He abandoned the Gitmo shutdown and even continued with the military tribunals.

It's the height of political comedy to see the left now defend Obama and the right excoriate him for what has essentially been Bush term 3.

Now wasn't that Obama's campaign against McCain...Bush 3?

[sappstuf]

I'm certainly no fan of Obama, but can somebody seriously tell me what he has done that's less imperialistic that W? He ordered a surge in Afghanistan. He was reluctantly drawn in to "lead" a foray into a foreign state's civil war. He followed the troop withdraw timeline in Iraq that W put in place to a t. He abandoned the Gitmo shutdown and even continued with the military tribunals.

It's the height of political comedy to see the left now defend Obama and the right excoriate him for what has essentially been Bush term 3.

But he did it for all the right reasons, so it is acceptable....

[okie52]

But he did it for all the right reasons, so it is acceptable....

He's always evolving along with the party of science.

[sappstuf]

He's always evolving along with the party of science.

Anything is excusable on the left.. Obama even ended up supporting rendition. Most lefties just look the other way.

[rock on sooner]

I guess I see a philosophical direction with obama...and it bothers me. My dad sent me the 900 exe order email..which I refuted with snopes and sent it back to him but he is "older" and set in his ways...lol. I think Americans have had their heads in the sand as far as how the country is run for a long time, if it doesn't directly effect me then no bother. Unfortunately now that people are starting to give a crap all these bogus emails/articles are coming up. Yes there are some that are legit but people are too lazy to really look into them. I've been lazy myself, but have learned my lesson. Quite frankly I don't trust MOST politicians, like you said, they have sold their soul to get elected.

Jeep, I asked you in an earlier thread about those orders, looked to me like
they were SOP for an incoming prez. You didn't respond. I searched some
but couldn't find anything. Is that what they were? Just standing "orders"
to protect the country/office?

[soonercruiser]

I'm certainly no fan of Obama, but can somebody seriously tell me what he has done that's less imperialistic that W? He ordered a surge in Afghanistan. He was reluctantly drawn in to "lead" a foray into a foreign state's civil war. He followed the troop withdraw timeline in Iraq that W put in place to a t. He abandoned the Gitmo shutdown and even continued with the military tribunals.

It's the height of political comedy to see the left now defend Obama and the right excoriate him for what has essentially been Bush term 3.

How about nationalizing 1/6th of the American economy - healthcare?
How about the government's ownership of GM? And then gave the union pension funds 40% ownership of GM?

[Skysooner]

How about nationalizing 1/6th of the American economy - healthcare?

ACA is not nationalizing, socialism, facism or any other ism you might want to come up with. Is it a great piece of legislation? No. It isn't what you keep saying it is or rather what your right wing blogs tell you it is.

The GM thing is a whole other story.

[Soonerjeepman]

Jeep, I asked you in an earlier thread about those orders, looked to me like
they were SOP for an incoming prez. You didn't respond. I searched some
but couldn't find anything. Is that what they were? Just standing "orders"
to protect the country/office?

oh, sorry...I got the bogus email saying obama had done 900+ exe orders...so I snoped it. he has done 130something...about regular for a president. A lot of them are ones that former presidents have done and he renewed them. For the record I'm not an obama supporter but I am trying to keep the truth in sight! ;-)

Does that help? the title was about taking over transportation, communication, banks, fuel, etc..I think if you go to snopes about search you'll find the email.

[soonercruiser]

It has yes. Both sides have been negative. The ads get really old, and they are on all the time in Colorado. I am happy that I have DVR to get past them. It does appear that the race is tightening. I have read a couple of more articles this morning on it. Obviously, the state of the economy hasn't had the effect on the race that it should have. Tactics from the Romney camp need to change.

Who started the negative attacks???
Obama and his trainers can't run on his record in office....so, NEGATIVE attacks are all they have!
Nothing....NOTHING can come close to accusing someone of causing someone else's death from cancer.

[Skysooner]

Who started the negative attacks???
Obama and his trainers can't run on his record in office....so, NEGATIVE attacks are all they have!
Nothing....NOTHING can come close to accusing someone of causing someone else's death from cancer.

Negative attacks are unfortunately effective, and they have been going on for years. Might as well ask which came first (chicken or the egg). Remember the Willie Horton attack ads? I was a Republican back then and didn't like those either.

[rock on sooner]

oh, sorry...I got the bogus email saying obama had done 900+ exe orders...so I snoped it. he has done 130something...about regular for a president. A lot of them are ones that former presidents have done and he renewed them. For the record I'm not an obama supporter but I am trying to keep the truth in sight! ;-)

Does that help? the title was about taking over transportation, communication, banks, fuel, etc..I think if you go to snopes about search you'll find the email.

Yup, thanks, kinda what I thought. Stands to reason that the prez would need
to have some things already in place in case of surprises.....

[okie52]

Negative attacks are unfortunately effective, and they have been going on for years. Might as well ask which came first (chicken or the egg). Remember the Willie Horton attack ads? I was a Republican back then and didn't like those either.

My favorite was Dukakis in the tank...really hard to beat that one.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

How about nationalizing 1/6th of the American economy - healthcare?
How about the government's ownership of GM? And then gave the union pension funds 40% ownership of GM?

Well, the subject was foreign policy and I'm not sure what nationalization has to do with imperialism.

As Sky pointed out ACA was not nationalization. Some may argue incrementalism and....oh well, **** it. Tired of beating my head on the wall. Carry on.

[soonercruiser]

I am a product of my genetics and what my parents taught me. I went to church for years and that didn't exactly stick did it. How many buildings has Obama blown up or how many Communist party meetings has he gone to as President? None that I know of. I have used "Polygamist" twice and it is simply an ironic twist to all of you who keep calling Obama a Socialist when there is exactly zero evidence to that fact. Just because you say something doesn't make it true and that is what this is pointing out. There is no evidence Romney is anything but a Mormon businessman. This is called irony. Ironic that you didn't get it.

Just simply and incredibly untruthful....like Obama himself!

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....OH! Dang! It's an insurance company!
:torn:

[Skysooner]

Just simply and incredibly untruthful....like Obama himself!

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....OH! Dang! It's an insurance company!
:torn:

Still disagree with you, but the joke is funny.